Dismissed

R.S.Narayanan, v. The District Registrar

Madras HC10 Feb 2016WP/23146/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 regarding an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act. The Court held that civil courts are the appropriate forum for factual disputes and framed no legal ground for the challenge.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court.

R.S.Narayanan, Vs The District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.02.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

W.P.No.23146 of 2014

and

M.P.No.1 of 2014

R.s.Narayanan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Registrar South Chennai (Admn.), Saidapet Sub-Registrar Office, Saidapet, Chennai-15. 2. The Sub-Registrar, Neelangarai Sub-Registrar Office, Neelangarai, Chennai-41. 3. M.Siddique @ Abubucker 4. A.Mallikannisha ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to calling for the records of the 1^st respondent pertaining to the Appeal No.1 of 2012 and order passed by the 1^st respondent dated 15.04.2013 and to quash the same and consequentially relief by way of direction, forbearing the 2^nd respondent from entertaining any sale deed from the respondents 3 & 4 pertaining to the petition property lands measuring to an extent of 75 cents, comprised in Old Survey No.51/1-A, New Survey No.51/1-A-2 and 51/1-A-3, situated at Seevaram Village, Perungudi, Chennai, Tambarram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶10

Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Dass Law Associates (For R3 & R4)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

2.The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order 15.04.2013 passed by the District Registrar, South Chennai, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, under Section 72 of the Registration Act.

¶15

3.If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he has to approach only the appropriate Civil Court. In the writ petition, this Court cannot conduct roving enquiry on the factual aspects. Further more, the impugned order was not challenged by the petitioner on any legal ground. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

4.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court to seek his remedy.

¶17

Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. ssv s/d- Assistant Registrar(CCC) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Registrar South Chennai (Admn.), Saidapet Sub-Registrar Office, Saidapet, Chennai-15. 2. The Sub-Registrar, Neelangarai Sub-Registrar Office, Neelangarai, Chennai-41. + 1 cc to Mr.S.Gopi, Advocate SR 9152 + 1 cc to M/s.Dass Law Associates, Advocate SR 8800 + 1 cc to Govt.Pleader SR 8796 ala(co) prk23/2 W.P.No.23146 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.S.Narayanan, v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S.Narayanan, v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Kathirvel Vs The Joint Commissioner

Minor Miriam Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Dr.R.Gnanasambandam, Vs The Secretary cum Registrar

K.Ramadoss Vs The Inspector General of

M.Mayil Vaganan Vs State of Tamilnadu

Randhir Singh Vs The Regional Officer